Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 265

Three key attributes of great companies

Investors need to consider more than the hard numbers of target investments. They need to identify 'softer' aspects of companies to gain an advantage. Recent revelations of misconduct from the Financial Services Royal Commission also emphasise the need for investors to garner greater insights into the corporate culture of companies in which they invest.

We’ve identified three key attributes in great growth companies. They are:

1. A tailwind or growth path ahead

Is the company in an industry set for secular growth or secular decline?

If the global demand for a company’s products is shrinking, or worse, if the product has been made irrelevant by a change in consumer preferences, it can be severely detrimental to value. A recent example is any small- or mid-sized newspaper company.

This attribute is a 'price of admission' characteristic. Making sure it is present won’t set you apart much, but if you forget to think about it, you are asking for trouble.

2. An expanding 'moat'

Warren Buffett used the ‘moat’ metaphor to describe an enduring competitive advantage. He likened a business to a castle and suggested that the company’s edge, the thing that keeps competitors from simply copying the business and destroying the company’s high profits, was the moat around the castle. A wide moat business can earn higher profits for a longer time. With Buffett’s success, this concept caught on. Today, for example, Morningstar publishes moat ratings for thousands of companies.

One financial metric that gives a good sense of the size of the moat is return on invested capital, or ROIC. High profitability attracts competitors, so an ROIC that has stayed high is a decent indication that there is some kind of valuable moat. But note the past tense. ROIC is a rearview mirror metric, in that it tells you where you have been, but really tells you nothing about where you are going.

The critical thing is not the size of the moat or the rearview mirror look at competitive advantage, but rather how the competitive advantage is changing – is it getting stronger, or weaker?

We call this dynamic aspect the 'moat trajectory', and our approach to identifying moat trajectories, as early as possible, has been to:

1. Analyse dozens of historical examples of moat lifecycles (essentially business case studies) and:

A. Look for common patterns.

B. Not expect those patterns to repeat exactly but check for where they tend to rhyme.

C. In those places where they rhyme, identify and catalogue the indicators of improving or deteriorating moats, and then construct a rough framework of what to look for.

2. Evaluate a prospective investment using that framework of indicators and:

A. If the markers are present, have confidence the moat is expanding.

B. If absent, conclude the moat is flat or deteriorating.

Deteriorating moats can be serious capital destroyers. And they are deceptive, because they usually start out as a great company that starts to look really cheap. Just ask the shareholders of Nokia or Blackberry or Yahoo, or others like them.

So, a “wide-moat company selling at a discount to intrinsic value” (an all-too common phrase in our industry) is not the answer. In particular, don’t let cheapness deceive you into believing you have a 'safe' investment.

The question to ask is, “Where is the company’s competitive edge in the future?” This is more important than the share price and value. For instance, some people will invest in the biggest company, or in market leaders, believing that this will provide safety for their investment. But if the organisation is losing its edge, either by declining market share or some other symptom of its shrinking moat, then that organisation will experience challenges and ultimately its share price will suffer.

3. An aligned corporate culture

An aligned corporate culture makes intuitive sense. If your employees hate working at a company, they will not put in their best efforts or ideas, and that will make it nearly impossible to have a good company (or investment). In contrast, if people enjoy working there, they will do more for it and their colleagues, and for the customers.

An organisation can have the greatest products, a robust brand and reputation, effective policies and processes and a long history of trading, but if the culture is poor, it is much less likely to succeed when compared with a business that has a healthy culture. Despite those good products, customer might complain about slow delivery, poor service or rude employees. These are all indicators of a company’s culture.

In contrast, companies with great service and employees that go the extra mile rarely have complaints made against them. If they are not making complaints, then customers will return to the better businesses, leading of course to better business results. It’s that simple.

Even when you have nearly identical businesses in the same industry, there can be big differences in business performance. Corporate culture is generally the explanation. For example, consider how Costco is so much more successful than Sam’s Club (a division of Walmart).

But how do you analyse corporate cultures? It’s not easy, and that’s why most investors skip it. We have an analyst dedicated to probe the cultures of companies in which we invest, and we have developed a proprietary methodology for assessing this subjective element. Assessment techniques we use to determine this include meeting with company management, and interviewing former employees, vendors, customers, and competitors. We also consider employee turnover rates, net promoter scores, online reviews, surveys, and many more inputs.

Visiting a business’s operations, for example, enables us to gather small yet highly informative details to evaluate its culture. Similarly, industry surveys and net promoter scores reveal hard-to-quantify appraisals of cultural reputations or overall customer satisfaction. The latter, for businesses with a significant proportion of customer-facing staff, is often reflective of its culture. Happy employees make happy customers, which make for happy shareholders.

The magic combination is a culture which encourages the behaviours that enhance the company’s competitive advantage. This can keep a business ahead of its competitors for years.

Accordingly, good investment research today is not just about getting hard financial numbers, it’s also about gaining a better understanding of the 'softer' aspects of businesses.

 

Kurt Winrich is Co-CEO and Portfolio Manager of WCM Investment Management, a California-based investment management firm. 

  •   2 August 2018
  • 2
  •      
  •   
2 Comments
SMSF Trustee
August 03, 2018

The problem with your list is that it doesn't allow for companies to adapt. Another kind of great company is one that doesn't have tail winds, is in a declining industry, but reinvents itself.

Energy companies grappling with the transition of the global economy to renewable sources are an example - it will be interesting to see which ones turn out to be great and which ones diminish.

Looking back, CSR hasn't been in sugar for nearly a decade now and has been more focused on building products since the mid-20th century, after starting out in 1855 as a sugar refining operation.

Adaptability doesn't automatically make a company 'great' of course, but my point is simply that your first point should be qualified to say that a company that either has great tailwinds or is capable of adjusting its activities to ride a new tailwind.

Tom
December 17, 2018

Interesting read. Tailwinds are a no brainer, but not many managers consider 'expanding' moats or culture in this.

@SMSF Trustee, if a company that doesn't have a tailwind adapts and reinvents itself effectively, it can become a company with a tailwind which would mean it fits the first criteria. Similarly, a company may have an expanding moat that becomes stagnant or in decline (Facebook may be an example of this), and it would therefore no longer fit the criteria.

Just because a company does or doesn't fit one of the above criteria at a particular point in time doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever.

So I would argue the list does allow for companies to adapt. Interesting point though.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Australian equities: a tale of two markets

Where to hide in the ‘everything bubble’

Is the iPhone nearing its Blackberry moment?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The growing debt burden of retiring Australians

More Australians are retiring with larger mortgages and less super. This paper explores how unlocking housing wealth can help ease the nation’s growing retirement cashflow crunch.

Warren Buffett's final lesson

I’ve long seen Buffett as a flawed genius: a great investor though a man with shortcomings. With his final letter to Berkshire shareholders, I reflect on how my views of Buffett have changed and the legacy he leaves.

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

With investor sentiment shifting and ETFs surging ahead, we pit Australia’s biggest LICs against their ETF rivals to see which delivers better returns over the short and long term. The results are revealing.

13 ways to save money on your tax - legally

Thoughtful tax planning is a cornerstone of successful investing. This highlights 13 legal ways that you can reduce tax, preserve capital, and enhance long-term wealth across super, property, and shares.

Why it’s time to ditch the retirement journey

Retirement isn’t a clean financial arc. Income shocks, health costs and family pressures hit at random, exposing the limits of age-based planning and the myth of a predictable “retirement journey".

The housing market is heading into choppy waters

With rates on hold and housing demand strong, lenders are pushing boundaries. As risky products return, borrowers should be cautious and not let clever marketing cloud their judgment.

Latest Updates

Interviews

AFIC on the speculative ASX boom, opportunities, and LIC discounts

In an interview with Firstlinks, CEO Mark Freeman discusses how speculative ASX stocks have crushed blue chips this year, companies he likes now, and why he’s confident AFIC’s NTA discount will close.

Investment strategies

Solving the Australian equities conundrum

The ASX's performance this year has again highlighted a persistent riddle facing investors – how to approach an index reliant on a few sectors and handful of stocks. Here are some ideas on how to build a durable portfolio.

Retirement

Regulators warn super funds to lift retirement focus

Despite three years under the retirement income covenant, regulators warn a growing gap between leading and lagging super funds, driven by poor member insights and patchy outcomes measurement.

Shares

Australian equities: a tale of two markets

The ASX seems a market split in two: between the haves and have nots; or those with growth and momentum and those without. In this environment, opportunity favours those willing to look beyond the obvious.

Investment strategies

Dotcom on steroids Part II

OpenAI’s business model isn't sustainable in the long run. If markets catch on, the company could face higher borrowing costs, or worse, and that would have major spillover effects.

Investment strategies

AI’s debt binge draws European telco parallels

‘Hyperscalers’ including Google, Meta and Microsoft are fuelling an unprecedented surge in equity and debt issuance to bankroll massive AI-driven capital expenditure. History shows this isn't without risk.

Investment strategies

Leveraged single stock ETFs don't work as advertised

Leveraged ETFs seek to deliver some multiple of an underlying index or reference asset’s return over a day. Yet, they aren’t even delivering the target return on an average day as they’re meant to do.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.